Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
Agreed. GW has been pretty clear on trying to make this as 'balanced as possible'.

What have been your thoughts about the IG toolkit?

That I need Lasguns back for Sergeants and Tempestors.

This. While I love bolter Sergeants, it would be nice to just make my Sergeants riflemen if I need to.

As an aside, anyone have suggestions for which regiment to use when you have an urban/Cityfight Army? Mostly infantry, some armor and Sentinels?

 Henimann wrote:
This. While I love bolter Sergeants, it would be nice to just make my Sergeants riflemen if I need to.

As an aside, anyone have suggestions for which regiment to use when you have an urban/Cityfight Army? Mostly infantry, some armor and Sentinels?

Krieg can take lasgun sergeants, if you want to give them a shot.

As for cityfight I would suggest:

- Tallarn have the speed to get about and can Ambush.
- Catachan have good flamers and melee.
- Mordian can overwatch if the enemy charges round a building.

Any suggestions on what to equip an Inquisitor?

With an AM army, his purpose is to unlock 3 -assassins- without loosing doctrines (using a Vanguard elite detachment).

Razerous wrote:
Any suggestions on what to equip an Inquisitor?

With an AM army, his purpose is to unlock 3 psykers without loosing doctrines (using a Vanguard elite deatchment).

If you're talking about the AM psykers, then you equip him with whatever looks coolest and put him back on the shelf, and then look at page 132, under "Advisors and Auxilla, and see where you can take Scholastica Psykana without preventing other units in the detachment from losing their doctrine.

 daedalus wrote:

Razerous wrote:
Any suggestions on what to equip an Inquisitor?

With an AM army, his purpose is to unlock 3 psykers without loosing doctrines (using a Vanguard elite deatchment).

If you're talking about the AM psykers, then you equip him with whatever looks coolest and put him back on the shelf, and then look at page 132, under "Advisors and Auxilla, and see where you can take Scholastica Psykana without preventing other units in the detachment from losing their doctrine.

Perhaps they meant assassins?

Maybe. In that case, I'd go cheap as possible, and then stick him in a corner somewhere. I've been pretty disappointed with the lack of potential that Inquisitors have had this edition.

Assassins are pretty cool though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, in THAT case, I'd probably just use a Primaris Psyker for the HQ, and then soup in the assassins that way.

I 100% did mean assassins, sorry!

The inquisitor costs 25% more than an AM HQ Psyker.. any reason to take the inquisitor? I could spare a few points but is it worthwhile? Is the Inquisitor powers table worthy?

Razerous wrote:
I 100% did mean assassins, sorry!

The inquisitor costs 25% more than an AM HQ Psyker.. any reason to take the inquisitor? I could spare a few points but is it worthwhile? Is the Inquisitor powers table worthy?

Inquistor's psyker powers aren't anything to write home about. Primaris or astropath really gets the job done. If you don't mind a little list tailoring of his inquisitor power, he can be an ok beat stick. Bring him along and put him with a unit of Crusaders and a priest in a chimera. Point him at your enemy's daemon prince or whatever and fire away.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Can special weapons squads still take demo charges??

Not the ones in the Codex. However, if you take the entry from the index then you can. It's a weird position really.

I'm not sure that's legal... I know there's that FAQ thing that lets you use models or wargear options that are no longer supported in the new codex, such as Chaos Lords on daemonic mounts, which were in the Index but not in the Codex... but that's a whole models' datasheet that was left out of the codex, but people have the models for so GW has said "You can still play them, but use the datasheet from the Index".

People have argued that this also covered things like Sergeants with Axes (which were removed from the IG codex, they can only have swords now), which would seem to be covered, but comes to be a pretty grey area. But a single axe vs sword isn't going to make a huge difference on average so it'll probably slide.

But it then gets to the point where you can say "In the index this unit was allowed to take 3 lascannons, but now it can only take 2 lascannons, so I'll use the Index version". How is that different to choosing between codex sword or index axe? It's not, not really. But it effects the way they (tried) to balance the book.

What if they dropped the toughness of a unit from 8 to 7? Not unlikely, as they just increased Wraithlords from 7 to 8. But If you can freely choose to use the Index datasheet for a weapons option, but not for stats options too?

Someone will reply with "Well no, because they say you should always use the most recent rules, datasheet and points values for a unit, from the most recent codex or index update!" Which is totally true. Which means no axes on sergeants, and no demolition charges on HWTs. But you can field a Chaos Lord on a Juggernaut, because that had it's own datasheet in the index, and it hasn't been superceded by a newer one.

I'm inclined to lean that at as well. Hopefully they can push out an FAQ which will address these questions sooner rather than later.

Anyone been trying out the cyclops demolition vehicles with Catachan doctrine? Seems like a pretty sweet combo, just by 3 and use them the same way you would scout sentinels only they don't give away VP's when you lose them. The rerolls for the blast seem really solid too if you take Catachan, I could see a few of these actually tearing through another guard armies screen really quickly and for very cheap.

The idea of come jungle vets bushwhacking the enemy with a powder keg on tracks just seems like classic Catachan to me as well

Seems better than no doctrine for sure. Tallarn could certainly be interesting ...

I have one but keep forgetting to try it out. I'm concerned about the D6 range. You can only detonate it in the shooting phase so you can't sling shot it in with a charge then blow it.

Niiru wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Can special weapons squads still take demo charges??

Not the ones in the Codex. However, if you take the entry from the index then you can. It's a weird position really.

I'm not sure that's legal... I know there's that FAQ thing that lets you use models or wargear options that are no longer supported in the new codex, such as Chaos Lords on daemonic mounts, which were in the Index but not in the Codex... but that's a whole models' datasheet that was left out of the codex, but people have the models for so GW has said "You can still play them, but use the datasheet from the Index".

People have argued that this also covered things like Sergeants with Axes (which were removed from the IG codex, they can only have swords now), which would seem to be covered, but comes to be a pretty grey area. But a single axe vs sword isn't going to make a huge difference on average so it'll probably slide.

But it then gets to the point where you can say "In the index this unit was allowed to take 3 lascannons, but now it can only take 2 lascannons, so I'll use the Index version". How is that different to choosing between codex sword or index axe? It's not, not really. But it effects the way they (tried) to balance the book.

What if they dropped the toughness of a unit from 8 to 7? Not unlikely, as they just increased Wraithlords from 7 to 8. But If you can freely choose to use the Index datasheet for a weapons option, but not for stats options too?

Someone will reply with "Well no, because they say you should always use the most recent rules, datasheet and points values for a unit, from the most recent codex or index update!" Which is totally true. Which means no axes on sergeants, and no demolition charges on HWTs. But you can field a Chaos Lord on a Juggernaut, because that had it's own datasheet in the index, and it hasn't been superceded by a newer one.

While my gut tells me your right, I still hope the FAQ clears up demo squads for SWS. Just can't understand the rational behind pushing for conversions with GW kits for IG yet cutting options for conversions at the same time. It wasn't as if SWS or power axe/maul seargents were an issue i thought as well. Will be a tough pill to swallow.

 RegulusBlack wrote:
Thanks TrickStick,

I understand i cannot make my Basilisk "Militarus Tempus" but i can make it "The Super Awesome Dudes" Regiment and then choose the "MT:Stormtrooper" Doctrine as my Regiments Doctrine based off of pg 132 ?

I don't believe there is anything that limits the Doctrine based off of your Army? Just that I Cannot have MT Basilisks, but i can have "TSAD" Basilisks with MT Doctrine?

Page 84 might help clarify this. It specifically disallows units from replacing <Regiment> with MILITARUM TEMPESTUS. While its poorly worded, I think what Page 132 is actually allowing you to do is replace <REGIMENT> with Militarum Tempestus" even though your army might actually be called "The Super Awesome Dudes". Thats just my intepretation however. As written it would seem that you are in the right, but I would be surprised if that remained the case past a FAQ. Also worth pointing out that doing this kinda ties your hands in some ways, as orders, artifacts, strategems, etc. are all tied to the "MILITARUM TEMPESTUS" keyword specifically, so at most you would be getting the benefit of the doctrine and nothing else.

I'm not sure that's legal... I know there's that FAQ thing that lets you use models or wargear options that are no longer supported in the new codex, such as Chaos Lords on daemonic mounts, which were in the Index but not in the Codex... but that's a whole models' datasheet that was left out of the codex, but people have the models for so GW has said "You can still play them, but use the datasheet from the Index".

It is legal, the same FAQ thing you reference makes a specific allowance for using models with weapon options that were in the index but not in the codex. I.E. - its the same datasheet in both codex and index, but the index has options that the codex version does not.

But it then gets to the point where you can say "In the index this unit was allowed to take 3 lascannons, but now it can only take 2 lascannons, so I'll use the Index version". How is that different to choosing between codex sword or index axe? It's not, not really. But it effects the way they (tried) to balance the book.

Yep, GW have kinda screwed themselves with a slippery slope situation here. I think they will need to clarify what, specifically, is allowable and what isn't, otherwise the codexes eventually become redundant.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 RegulusBlack wrote:

I'm not sure that's legal... I know there's that FAQ thing that lets you use models or wargear options that are no longer supported in the new codex, such as Chaos Lords on daemonic mounts, which were in the Index but not in the Codex... but that's a whole models' datasheet that was left out of the codex, but people have the models for so GW has said "You can still play them, but use the datasheet from the Index".

It is legal, the same FAQ thing you reference makes a specific allowance for using models with weapon options that were in the index but not in the codex. I.E. - its the same datasheet in both codex and index, but the index has options that the codex version does not.

But it then gets to the point where you can say "In the index this unit was allowed to take 3 lascannons, but now it can only take 2 lascannons, so I'll use the Index version". How is that different to choosing between codex sword or index axe? It's not, not really. But it effects the way they (tried) to balance the book.

Yep, GW have kinda screwed themselves with a slippery slope situation here. I think they will need to clarify what, specifically, is allowable and what isn't, otherwise the codexes eventually become redundant.

I would say, however, that usually rules erratas are only valid for the codex they are errata-ing. Unless this FAQ was in the main rulebook errata... I honestly can't remember which army it was for. Thought it was space marines but I can't see it on there now when I look. The wording didn't say anything about "this rule applies to all armies" or anything. It's a precedent, sure, but since when has precedence meant anything in 40k lol

Otherwise, I agree with you - GW screwed up and it's a slippery slope.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Seems better than no doctrine for sure. Tallarn could certainly be interesting ...

I have one but keep forgetting to try it out. I'm concerned about the D6 range. You can only detonate it in the shooting phase so you can't sling shot it in with a charge then blow it.

Well it moves 10" and can EASILY be hidden behind a tank. It is also cheap as dirt and nobody will want to be near it. I think rolling it up behind the must take hellhound would work quite well, I also think putting it near an objective in no mans land is hilarious. 2d6 s9 ap-2 d3 damage auto hits is no fething joke, especially with a reroll for number of hits. Would laos be a nightmare in a tallarn detachment if you had 3 units of these show up right up your ass

Edit: actually after rereading it, seems as though you can detonate it in combat, I know you can't the turn you charge, but turn 1 if your not in range to detonate but can charge a unit then that seems like a solid approach, just watch them flee in their turn and if they don't roll high enough move it up and blow them up lol. You figure the majority of things don't move 10" and you can't adcance as part of a withdrawal so they will have to kill it or tie it up with something else lol. Or shoot it of course but 4 t6 3+ save wounds isn't gona be easy.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Seems better than no doctrine for sure. Tallarn could certainly be interesting ...

I have one but keep forgetting to try it out. I'm concerned about the D6 range. You can only detonate it in the shooting phase so you can't sling shot it in with a charge then blow it.

Well it moves 10" and can EASILY be hidden behind a tank. It is also cheap as dirt and nobody will want to be near it. I think rolling it up behind the must take hellhound would work quite well, I also think putting it near an objective in no mans land is hilarious. 2d6 s9 ap-2 d3 damage auto hits is no fething joke, especially with a reroll for number of hits. Would laos be a nightmare in a tallarn detachment if you had 3 units of these show up right up your ass

Edit: actually after rereading it, seems as though you can detonate it in combat, I know you can't the turn you charge, but turn 1 if your not in range to detonate but can charge a unit then that seems like a solid approach, just watch them flee in their turn and if they don't roll high enough move it up and blow them up lol. You figure the majority of things don't move 10" and you can't adcance as part of a withdrawal so they will have to kill it or tie it up with something else lol. Or shoot it of course but 4 t6 3+ save wounds isn't gona be easy.

Hiding it behind a tank is all fun and games until they bring out the indirect fire weapons and cause a terrifying mortal wound cascade in your motor pool.

Niiru wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Can special weapons squads still take demo charges??

Not the ones in the Codex. However, if you take the entry from the index then you can. It's a weird position really.

I'm not sure that's legal... I know there's that FAQ thing that lets you use models or wargear options that are no longer supported in the new codex, such as Chaos Lords on daemonic mounts, which were in the Index but not in the Codex... but that's a whole models' datasheet that was left out of the codex, but people have the models for so GW has said "You can still play them, but use the datasheet from the Index".

People have argued that this also covered things like Sergeants with Axes (which were removed from the IG codex, they can only have swords now), which would seem to be covered, but comes to be a pretty grey area. But a single axe vs sword isn't going to make a huge difference on average so it'll probably slide.

But it then gets to the point where you can say "In the index this unit was allowed to take 3 lascannons, but now it can only take 2 lascannons, so I'll use the Index version". How is that different to choosing between codex sword or index axe? It's not, not really. But it effects the way they (tried) to balance the book.

What if they dropped the toughness of a unit from 8 to 7? Not unlikely, as they just increased Wraithlords from 7 to 8. But If you can freely choose to use the Index datasheet for a weapons option, but not for stats options too?

Someone will reply with "Well no, because they say you should always use the most recent rules, datasheet and points values for a unit, from the most recent codex or index update!" Which is totally true. Which means no axes on sergeants, and no demolition charges on HWTs. But you can field a Chaos Lord on a Juggernaut, because that had it's own datasheet in the index, and it hasn't been superseded by a newer one.

The big thing for me is I have a ton of old IG models with things like shotguns, demo charges, and yes, legit power axes (the original hand flamer commissar, I have 2 of them) so it was a bit of cruel move to give me back my shotgun company and platoon commanders only for them to be taken away again, along with taking away demo charges entirely and other things like power axes. I really hope there's a way to keep bringing them, taking away shotguns on commanders alone invalidated like 10 different officer models I have. Not to mention krak grenades and melta bombs being gone as upgrades for many units, which used to be all over the codex. And then of course we get into all the veteran doctrines disappearing and even more odd ones like sergeants STILL not being able to take lasguns when the new stormtrooper kit even shows the sergeant with one slung on his backpack? Not to mention the other infantry kits have the option of outfitting all 10 men with rifles if memory serves. They just seem like really odd choices and someone must be preventing it higher up, it makes no sense why with all the other stuff we got nobody thought "huh, that's weird, the sarge should be able to take a lasgun".

Not to mention my priest has a plasma pistol and an eviscerator. I got them back for all of a few months only for the options to disappear again. I'm sure there's more stuff I haven't noticed yet in here somewhere, that's just what I have for now.

Was this an issue with other codexes? I don't remember hearing about this when space marines and chaos space marines came out but surely they had something similar happen.

The errata would still apply. You can't name your regiment Militarum Tempestus. However "Bob's Regiment" can use the Militarum Tempestus doctrine all they want. They can't use the stormtrooper's transports, or officers, and any stormtroopers in the same detachment will loose THEIR doctrine. All because this is "Bob's Regiment".

Played vs a tournament admech army. Cawl, knight, robots galore.

Tabled him turn 4.

Tallaran Shadowsword. Tank commander, and two demo tanks all with the extra guns and a cadian fire base (manticore, wyverns, conscripts)

Worked very well. Love the tank order to move 6 before OR after shooting. And oh that dune crawler that is a vehicle killed. Yeah Ill charge that with a tank.

Worked well. Guard are very competitive.

Sucks he blew up both my cyclops turn 1.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Seems better than no doctrine for sure. Tallarn could certainly be interesting ...

I have one but keep forgetting to try it out. I'm concerned about the D6 range. You can only detonate it in the shooting phase so you can't sling shot it in with a charge then blow it.

The range is not a big deal. Hide them out of LOS 10" behind a unit that is likely to get charged or advance them to hide behind a Los blocking piece of terrain. Think of them as a 22" diameter area denial tool.

Tallaran won't do anything for a cyclops except the out flank doctrine.

Noob question I bought an executioner kit but haven't put it together I already have 3 Battle Tanks and Pask; Is there a reason executioner plasma cannons got cut to D3? Is there a reason to take it over battle cannons that have twice as much range, "almost twice" as many shots, and won't cause mortal wounds on 1, and average the same damage? +1 Strength, -1AP worth all that much? I'm not trashing executioners but I'd like to hear opinions on Astra Militarium players that use Executioners.

Comparing supercharge vs the battle cannon, you get more consistent damage which the battle cannon will match or surpass 66% of the time, and the AP increases odds of causing wounds an overall 16% for anything with 4+ or better armor. And it costs 2 fewer points.

I typically play close range, so I'd say yeah, it's probably a good way to go. Toss some guns on it with good range synergy and have it be the one that moves up, while your LRBT keep shelling across the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I think I see part of the confusion. Don't look at the plasma cannon. Look at the Executioner Plasma Cannon.

Resipsa131 wrote:
Noob question I bought an executioner kit but haven't put it together I already have 3 Battle Tanks and Pask; Is there a reason executioner plasma cannons got cut to D3? Is there a reason to take it over battle cannons that have twice as much range, "almost twice" as many shots, and won't cause mortal wounds on 1, and average the same damage? +1 Strength, -1AP worth all that much? I'm not trashing executioners but I'd like to hear opinions on Astra Militarium players that use Executioners.

They didn't get dropped to D3, still D6. Also, S8 and S9 are pretty much equivalent except against other t8 units, while the 2 damage is a lot more reliable than d3 especially against 2 wound models. If you make 3 wounds against primaris marines with a battlecannon, there's a good chance you'll only kill 2, possibly 1.5 if you roll 1s on damage for the first and third wound. Where as with the executioner its 3 guaranteed dead. An additional point of ap is always good, and if you're playing pask cadians, you should always be rerolling 1s to hit, so mortal wounds are far less of a worry. Whereas index executioners, even one overheat was really bad, now one mortal wound is a fair price to pay. 36" is a fair old range, you just have to be careful with deployment, especially in games that play lengthways.

Does a slabshield give a 5++, or do you have to have one before you can add to it?

xmbk wrote:
Does a slabshield give a 5++, or do you have to have one before you can add to it?

You have to have one to add to it. An invuln, like an armour save, is not a right, but is conferred from wargear, abilities or auras. The slabshield only adds two to the save, so you have to have something conferring the save in the first place. This is why you see 7+ armour saves. You could in principle see, 7+ invuln saves that would mean you need a bonus like a slabshield to get a 5++.

RogueApiary wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Seems better than no doctrine for sure. Tallarn could certainly be interesting ...

I have one but keep forgetting to try it out. I'm concerned about the D6 range. You can only detonate it in the shooting phase so you can't sling shot it in with a charge then blow it.

Well it moves 10" and can EASILY be hidden behind a tank. It is also cheap as dirt and nobody will want to be near it. I think rolling it up behind the must take hellhound would work quite well, I also think putting it near an objective in no mans land is hilarious. 2d6 s9 ap-2 d3 damage auto hits is no fething joke, especially with a reroll for number of hits. Would laos be a nightmare in a tallarn detachment if you had 3 units of these show up right up your ass

Edit: actually after rereading it, seems as though you can detonate it in combat, I know you can't the turn you charge, but turn 1 if your not in range to detonate but can charge a unit then that seems like a solid approach, just watch them flee in their turn and if they don't roll high enough move it up and blow them up lol. You figure the majority of things don't move 10" and you can't adcance as part of a withdrawal so they will have to kill it or tie it up with something else lol. Or shoot it of course but 4 t6 3+ save wounds isn't gona be easy.

Hiding it behind a tank is all fun and games until they bring out the indirect fire weapons and cause a terrifying mortal wound cascade in your motor pool.

So you seriously think that them wasting their indirect artillery capable of killing a 4w t6 3+ save unit is somehow a bad thing? When it does it causes d3 mortal wounds, big whoop. It's hardly going to cascade with proper placement, it would cause a couple wounds to the blocking tank and any other I was too lazy to be bothered to measure from to keep 6.00001" away.

IDK, to me that seems like a win right there for 40pts, even if it causes 2 MW to my hellhound. Besides it is not as if there is a ton of indirect fire capable of killing one of these in a volley.

Yet another random question - do you think Tank Commanders are worth their points, or is it better to just have cheaper, BS4+ Russes?

Also, does it make any difference which Leman Russ you're using?

 vipoid wrote:
Yet another random question - do you think Tank Commanders are worth their points, or is it better to just have cheaper, BS4+ Russes?

Also, does it make any difference which Leman Russ you're using?

I'd use tank commanders (especially pask) but you don't need all tank commanders. I currently run Pask and 2 normals. As to type, that matters a lot. Executioner, Battle Cannon and Punisher are all standouts (that's not in order) while the other 4 weapons are all situational or just flat out worse.

I've had crazy good success with battle Cannon, Lascannon, heavy Bolter tank commanders.

I like to run a punisher with 3 heavy flamers as a normal tank. I also give it track guards.

They have wrecked people.